**
You asked, so I have provided it:
What now? Do you still respect that opinion?
You are correct, H.A., that the UNSC does not decide whether to deploy US Armed Forces. But you cannot honestly argue against the fact that the UNSC was the only body that could determine if Iraq was in material breach of UNSC Res 1441 in March 2003. Only the UNSC could authorize whether any UN Member State could use it’s armed forces to enforce ‘all’ UNSC Resolutions regarding Iraq which included 1441 at the time of US invasion.
You are completely wrong H.A. and fooling yourself when you argue that the Congress of the United States of America had any legal authority to authorize a U.S. President to specifically enforce by means of military force a UNSC Resolution **when that UNSC Resolution **does not demand the use of force? And in the case of Res 1441, the UNSC members emphatically came out in opposition and rejection to the US and UK’s request for a UNSC authorization to use military force.
To ‘enforce’ UN Resolution 1441 Bush would have held back on the use of military force instead of applying it. That is an undeniable fact.
Congress in October 2002 had a certain expectation that something along he lines of 1441 would hopefully be coming after the passage of the AUMF. So it stands to reason that Congress would have expected Bush to comply with a UNSC Resolution that he himself was seeking and that would attempt to bring Iraq into compliance through diplomatic efforts and peaceful means of coercion back up by the real threat of military force if Iraq or the UNSC should fail to achieve a definitive path to full compliance and verifiable disarmament.
It is absurd to contend the AUMF language authorizing use of force “in order to” enforce all relevant UNSC Resolutions" precluded a 1441 if and when it came about.
In 1998 President Clinton’s case for military action (Operation Desert Fox and NFZ enforcement) was grounded on Iraq’s failure to comply with it’s international obligations. Clinton’s justification for ODF focused on non-cooperation issues which meant Clinton’s Iraq policy fit within the legal framework set up by the UNSC.
The underlying mandate within all the relevant UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq was that Iraq provide unconditional cooperation which it did not overall present itself to do. Therefore Iraq was in material breach and in violation of international law until 1441 was passed and went into effect at the end of 2002. 1441 significantly modified that material breach (it did not eliminate the material breach) into a working plan defined as a Final Opportunity to Comply.
Clinton’s purpose and intent was not ‘enforcing UNSC Resolutions’ per se because the UNSC did not authorize the actions he took. But Clinton presented what he was doing as attempting to force Iraq into compliance with UNSC Resolutions by the use of military force.
Bush did not err when he attempted to apply President Clinton’s 1998 Air Strikes rationale as a response to Iraq’s non-compliance with UNSC demands. Bush was correct to promise to seek and to actually seek a 1441 Resolution that gave Iraq a ‘final opportunity to comply’ and be peacefully disarmed through expected cooperation and unconditional compliance. Bush erred when he had to begin to see that the inspection process put into place was turning the environment away from war to peaceful disarmament. Bush erred when he gradually and effectually steered the burden of proof of compliance away from Iraq to a burden of proof of the material existence of WMD stockpiles as that burden of proof shifted to the US and UK as they became self anointed prosecutors making their case for war.
The error continued to magnify when the proof Bush expected inspectors to uncover did not materialize. And the (hidden) hope that Iraq would not cooperate was steadily dissolving with every passing moment as the window of opportunity for a cooler weather invasion was being closed. That time pressure forced Bush and Blair to ultimately declare that Iraq’s WMD could only be found after regime change initiated by war. They claimed against Iraq’s denial that Iraq was concealing these stockpiles of WMD and WMD programs from the 1441 inspection regime.
The entire burden of proof in the case for war was now entirely on Bush and Blair.
They committed an excusable error… and it is quite possible they committed it knowingly that the proof was never solid and surely never beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I disagree with Human Action’s view that the AUMF as passed made it easier for Bush to launch a war because I am certain that 1441 definitely got in his way and he had to lie in the end to justify war. He had to lie about Iraq’s cooperation with the 1441 inspection regime.
Not so fast H.A.
And I also disagree because I believe Bush’s case for invading Iraq was stronger and had less pitfalls if done when Iraq was still in violation of international law and without a unanimous UNSC offer to get the final opportunity to comply that 1441 provided.
I say that supported by the following and not because I agree with it, but because it was a fairly certain reality that it could not be challenged in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.
That comes from this link: http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm
Here’s the final paragraph and conclusion:
Well, no wonder I missed the post, it was from over 10 years ago. Assuming John Mace was referring to the 1441 inspection regime, and not the UNSCOM ones and thus the general idea of Hussein as outlaw dictator, I disagree with his conclusion. Certainly Iraq could have done much, much more to violate the letter of 1441.
Hey, progress.
I don’t argue with that.
That also true…but, the United States and its coalition weren’t acting as part of a UN force. That’s the crucial thing you keep ignoring. The U.S. was acting entirely independently of the UN. You saw no blue helmets during the invasion.
To summarize: Only the UNSC can send UN forces to war. Under the UN charter, only the UNSC can authorize legal wars, other than those undertaken in self-defense.
However, the United States Armed Forces were not part of a UN force. The war was neither authorized by the UNSC, nor undertaken in self-defense, so unless you buy the enforcement-of-660-via-678 argument, the war was a violation of the UN charter. It was not a violation of American law: the President was acting within the bounds of the power Congress voted him.
Congress can authorize the U.S. Armed forces to do anything that Congress and the President want them to do. The UNSC can’t stop Congress from passing any laws that they desire to pass.
First, he was empowered to enforce all resolutions relevant to Iraq, which is much more than just 1441.
Second, he was empowered to use the Armed Forces to enforce said resolutions as he determined to be necessary and appropriate. Not as the UNSC determined to be necessary and appropriate, as the President found to be necessary and appropriate. If that means a sustained ground invasion, than a sustained ground invasion we shall have. That’s what “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate” gets you.
You didn’t answer me before: What is the difference between the Iraq War Resolution and the Levin Amendment? What does one require that the other does not?
That’s all fine…but it doesn’t make the war illegal under domestic law, any more than Clinton’s bombings were.
Why is this such a line in the sand for you? The war was most likely illegal under international law. Why do you maintain that it was also illegal under domestic law, when a plain reading of the AUMF shows that it wasn’t? Do you think you’re letting Bush off the hook, or what?
I’m sure he expected Iraq to fail to comply, but it’s hard to argue that 1441 got in his way when, y’know, he launched the war and all. Do bugs get in the way of a car windshield? Technically, yes, but not to much effect.
To my mind, the fact that Bush didn’t invade between the AUMF being signed on October 16th and the UNSC passing resolution 1441 on November 8th is evidence that he really was concerned about Iraqi WMDs, and not necessarily out for war on any pre-text. As I wrote before, I suspect the failure to turn up much of anything convinced him and his team that Iraq was concealing weapons, and that lead to war, which while not a lie as such, is foolish, irrational thinking and should be condemned.
Ah, John Yoo, of torture-memo fame. His conclusion is, just like it was with the torture issue, laughably wrong. The AUMF Against Terrorists couldn’t be clearer:
As you can see, the targeted nations, organizations, and persons in fact must be those linked to the specific terrorist attack of September 11th.
And again, if Bush wants to argue this nonsense, or that Iraq was behind 9/11, let him try. The fact that Bush did seek the Iraq War Resolution, instead of proceeding under the AUMF Against Terrorists, is unshakeable evidence that he though he’d be better off proceeding under an AUMF that didn’t require such nonsense. If it didn’t help him and he didn’t need it, why did he want it?
.
But you are arguing that Bush was indeed ‘enforcing’ ALL UNSC Resolutions including 1441 which is impossible because Bush defied and bypassed and basically pissed on 1441 when he decided to use military force instead of diplomacy.
You can’t have it both ways H.A. And the way you’ve chosen is impossible.
This is getting circular, so I’ll reduce it down. Say you were arguing with Bush in a court of law, and he laid out the following:
- The AUMF authorized me (Bush) to use the Armed Forces if I determined it to be necessary to defend the security of the U.S. or enforce all UNSC resolutions relevant to Iraq.
- Resolution 687 is such a resolution.
- I determined that it was necessary to use the Armed Forces to enforce Resolution 687.
- I was thus authorized to use the Armed Forces to carry that out.
What would your rebuttal be?
Guys, guys, guys…
What is this? Great Debates?
These are facts.
Since **NotfooledbyW ** had determined that SH/Iraq was in compliance and not in material breach of UN Res 1441, and since the only body that could do this is the UNSC, it follows that NotfooledbyW must actually be the UNSC posting on this board trying to defend itself by saying “You Bush defenders don’t understand what we meant UN Res 1441 to allow”.
Let’s get back on track and Pit NotfooledbyW [them, the UNSC] for allowing Bush’s invasion to happen by giving Bush a resolution that can only interpreted correctly by NotfooledbyW [them, the UNSC].
Note: I will disregard any flaws pointed out in my logic as semantic hairsplitting after not reading or understanding them. [Sticks fingers in ears and says “Nah…nah…nah…”]
You were authorized to enforce ALL. Iraq was given a final opportunity to comply with 687 with no deadline, under authority and supervision of the UNSC and Resolution 1441. It was the determination of the UNSC to continue supervision of Iraq’s final opportunity to comply by peaceful means not the use of military force. You were directed by Congress to enforce ALL and they knew as they granted you that authority that you were seeking to obtain a resolution such as 1441 that you did seek and obtain.
Why did you defy Congress by choosing to enforce only one UNSC Resolution as you just admitted right here, in defiance of the language written in the AUMF?
Who the fuck do you think you are?
Sticking with Hypothetical Bush’s legal defense:
“687 is part of ‘all’. Just as a prosecution can enforce all laws without having to charge every defendant with every crime that the prosecutor is able to enforce, I chose to enforce 687.”
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
Iraq was given a final opportunity to comply with 687 with no deadline, under authority and supervision of the UNSC and Resolution 1441. It was the determination of the UNSC to continue supervision of Iraq’s final opportunity to comply by peaceful means not the use of military force. You were directed by Congress to enforce ALL and they knew as they granted you that authority that you were seeking to obtain a resolution such as 1441 that you did seek and obtain.
[/quote]
"I respect the judgment and authority of the UNSC, but resolution 687 was still in effect, and needed to be enforced, and I was empowered to enforce it by Congress if I thought that was necessary, and I did think that.
The determinations of the UNSC on Iraq’s behavior are not binding on my war powers as President of the United States, and authorized by Congress as provided by the Constitution. As President, I can’t make determinations for the UNSC, nor can they make determinations for me.
If Congress intended for me to only enforce new resolutions, they would have passed the Levin Amendment, which contained that limitation."
“It was the most pressing of the resolutions that needed to be enforced, and the power to enforce all is the power to enforce any number of them, from zero to one to however many there are. It was impossible to enforce all of them at once with a single military action; how could I enforce resolution 674 and resolution 687 at the same time?”
“The sole person vested with the power to direct the United States Armed Forces under the AUMF I was given.”
You are absolutely wrong H.A. because a prosecutor has jurisdiction over all the laws that can be charged by him. Bush was dealing with an authority that he does not preside over or operate subordinate to it.
Bush did not have unilateral jurisdiction over UNSC Resolutions. He could enforce UN Resolutions as a member state to the UN, but he could not decide to enforce against the will and authority of the body that has jurisdiction over their own resolutions.
The precedent established was that the US could enforce UN Resolutions regarding Iraq without specific authorization by the UNSC when Iraq was found in material breach of any disarmament resolutions and which was the case prior to 1441.
However 1441 fully and without a doubt suspended all member states right to take unilateral military action against Iraq to enforce all or any preceding resolutions wherein Iraq was in material breach status.
That is because Iraq was given a FINAL Opportunity to comply despite being in material breach of all Resolutions prior to 1441. Iraq was not in material breach of 1441 which is why Bush could not enforce it. And Bush could not single out a single Resolution to enforce because 1441 put the material breach of all those preceding resolutions on temporary hold pending any need to reconvene under 1441 to determine if Iraq was in material breach of 1441. And the UNSC did not reconvene and remained seized of the matter.
So your argument is intensely false and would be rejected in any court because Bush sought and accepted 1441 with eyes wide open.
Go back to my post regarding President Clinton and ODF. Bush could have applied the rational you seek for Bush, but 1441 fucked him out of the ability to enforce only one or a few of the many UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq.
And Bush was told to enforce ALL not pick and choose in the language of the AUMF. All in legal tens had to include 1441 and 1441 clearly said not to enforce any resolutions unless 1441 was shown to fail.
You admit 1441 didn’t fail. Bush did not comply as he was directed in the AUMF,
It is time you admit Bush ignored the restraint put on him by the AUMF and hold Bush accountable for that instead of continuing to spread the pro/bush myth that the AUMF had no restraints.
The restraint in the AUMF would have worked if Bush obeyed what he was told to do. Bush could have and would have enforced 1441 and thus all resolutions had he allowed the inspections to continue for a few more months.
Bush decided to go the violent route and should not be left off the hook for pissing on the AUMF.
Bush could not Enforce 1441 because Iraq was not in material breach of it.
Bush had no authority to declare, based upon his opinion, that Iraq was in material breach of 1441.
Bush disagreed with the majority on the UNSC and invaded Iraq based upon his own conclusion. But that is what and only what Bush was enforcing - his own goddamned conclusion. It was not ever an act that could be called ‘enforcing’ UNSC Res 1441.
[QUOTE]
You are correct, H.A., that the UNSC does not decide whether to deploy US Armed Forces. - Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW (Post 16534171) [/QUOTE[
Hey, progress. -Human Action 08-02-2013 09:37 AM
John Mace said, "and that leaves us with our own brains to figure things out. And it was clear that Iraq had not even “begun to comply” with 1441, per my quote from Blix on item #4 above. He had 30 days, and the 30 days had passed. -John Mace 06-23-2013 08:54 AM
Keeping things simple, again: the key plank your position depends on is that in the AUMF language “The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to…enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq”, “enforce” means “operate as part of a UN force, or operate unilaterally after Iraq has been found in material breach of 1441, a la Clinton in '98.” Correct?
Since I don’t want to go round and round on this with you, how about this: if you’re correct about that, you can’t be only one who noticed. Surely you’d be able to find a respected legal commentator, someone like Alan Dershowitz, who reached the same conclusion and wrote about it. So, I challenge you: produce some evidence that this interpretation of yours is shared by any legal experts.
And I’ll ask you for the third time: What is the difference between the Iraq War Resolution and the Levin Amendment? What does one require that the other does not?
I am saying your summation pretty much sums up the actual language that is written in the AUMF and that Bush did not adhere to it because it is not legally possible to ‘enforce’ a UN Resolution such as 1441 when Iraq was in compliance with it or never found to be out of compliance with it.
You need to tell me how Bush had anything to ‘enforce’ with respect to 1441 since Iraq was not declared in material breach of it. Bush could not enforce compliance when compliance is already there. That is why Bush tried to get a majority of UNSC members to approve setting a ten day deadline for the UNSC to declare Iraq in material breach of 1441 or declare Iraq in full compliance with everything. Bush could not get the nine members he needed so he withdrew that draft.
We don’t need a Dershowitz to tell us what the language in the AUMF actually says.
paraphrasing to the pertinent points:
(a) Bush, you can use military force if you determine that it is absolutely needed “IN ORDER TO” enforce UNSC Resolution 1441 if it comes to pass.
(That is if Iraq is found to be in material breach of 1441 you may enforce it… If Iraq complies with 1441 … there is nothing to enforce)
(b) You can determine it is necessary to enforce ‘All’ UNSC Resolutions in material breach by Iraq at present if the UNSC refused to act or denies passage of a new tougher resolution to get Iraq to disarm peacefully and immediately.
(Straightforward authorization of war if this condition occurs… I do not think the Leven Amendment had this)
(c) You can determine it is necessary to ‘enforce’ UNSC 1441 if Iraq fails to cooperate and take advantage of its final opportunity to comply and the UNSC determines Iraq is in material breach of that final opportunity to be disarmed peacefully.
(d) the matter of a Russian French or Chinese VETO against a majority of UNSC Members who sided with Bush in that Iraq was in material breach of 1441 would have given Bush sufficient cover to ‘proceed with enforcing Res 1441’ in compliance with the language in the AUMF.
But Bush needed a vote on his draft resolution and needed at least four or five members to come to his side. Canada a strong ally said no to Bush… and that pretty much presented Bush from persuading any other on the fence members that Iraq should be declared in material breach within the next ten days unless Blix could finish all his work in that short time.
Bush pulled the Draft Resolution because it would have failed and there would have been no need for a veto.
From that point on it is impossible to state Dershowitz or no Dershowitz that Bush would be ‘enforcing’ 1441 though military force . And it is impossible to state that the AUMF said he could use military force by ignoring a major restraint such as “enforce all UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq” as it was written.
The complacency by the legal profession, the experts, the politicians, the news media about Bush’s going outside the AUMF is a different but related discussion.
I think what I have shown is that Bush was not given a blank check as so many on the left want it to be for other political and self-centered biased reasons. But you have to open your mind to the more significant issue that Bush is getting away in a PR sense with something that will be terrible if he does.
My issue is that this** blank check myth **is supported necessarily by the other myth that favors Bush’s legacy. And that is that **Saddam is to be blamed in full because Bush wanted peace more than anything in the world but S.H. did not cooperate under 1441 **so Bush had no choice but to take the nation to war.
As you can see H.A. you were uninformed about John Maces’s views on Iraq’s cooperation with 1441… and you said you respected his bs opinion etc. That opinion that **Iraq did not cooperate sufficient to avert war **is the strongest foundation that supports BUsh and the pro-invasion conservatives and Republicans that they have. Combined with the Blank Check Myth puts much of the responsibility for Bush’s defiance of AUMF and 1441 back on to the yes votes in Congress in October which occurred prior to knowing if the UN would act of that Iraq would properly respond.
Ridding the “blank check myth” from the world puts all responsibility for the irrational decision that Bush made, whenever he made it entirely on him.
And that is all that we are really contending here.
The right and the pro-Bush types need that** “Iraq failed to cooperate”** myth to keep Bush from being seriously questioned and examined as to why he failed to see that peaceful disarming of Iraq in March 2003 was the only rational way to go.
Why do we let the irrational Bush off the hook by letting his lie float around unchallenged that Iraq ‘didn’t let the inspectors in’… after 1441.
Is this discussion about anything more substantial than semantics?
The language is the word “enforce”. You’re claiming that the word is packed to bursting with all these inherent meanings and limitations, but have no support for that view other than your own conviction that it is so.
Where, again, do the words “material breach” or “compliance” appear in the AUMF? Again, you’re trying to spin all of this off the word “enforce”, based on nothing but moral outrage.
Well, yes, Bush wanted UN sanction for his war, and tried to get it. That’s irrevelant to whether the AUMF authorized him to start the war.
Do you have any evidence, at all, that your interpretations of the AUMF statute are correct? Anything outside your own mind?
If you’re the only person promoting this interpretation of the AUMF, your takeaway shouldn’t be that the legal profession is “complacent”, but rather that you’re probably wrong. This wasn’t some historical footnote, this was an extremely controversial war launched just 10 years ago after lengthy, heated debate within the government, the media, and the citizenry. There was great opposition to the war, including a legal challenge, Doe v. Bush:
The plaintiffs in that case argued an interpretation of the AUMF that was even narrower than yours. It wasn’t ruled on.
Certainly people at the time believed that the war was illegal under international law, and made the case for it:
Where was the chorus of arguments that the war was illegal under American law? Why didn’t the Congressmen who voted for the AUMF on the understanding that it limited Bush in the way you describe raise holy hell when he violated those supposed limits and thus the power of Congress?
You haven’t shown it, you’ve merely said it. Showing it requires some kind of evidence, not just bald assertions. Here’s two types of evidence that you could produce:
-
Members of Congress during and after the passage of the AUMF stating that the AUMF constrained Bush in the way you say it did; that would be evidence of Congress’ intent for an originalist interpretation.
-
Legal experts claiming that the AUMF as written constrained Bush in the way you say it did; that would be evidence of the meaning of the statute for a textualist interpretation.
Those two concepts are not linked in any way. An honest person should evaluate the “blank check” idea on the basis of whether it’s true or not, rather than how well it supports something else that may or may not be true. You’re tipping your hand here, that your sole concern is that Bush’s legacy be one of an irresponsible war-monger (which it is), and if any piece of that narrative is actually untrue, it’s a worthy sacrifice to keep the narrative strong and pure. That’s propaganda, not history.
I said I respected his opinion that deposing a brutal, outlaw dictator justified a war on its own, even if it’s neither self-defense nor pursuant to a UNSC resolution.
Much of the responsibility does belong there, and the “myth” is anything but, unless you can back it up with evidence. Furthermore, one can hardly defend Bush by saying that “the war was an awful mistake, but Congress voted for it!” That’s not a defense. A defense would be that the war wasn’t a mistake, was justified, etc.
Here’s two pieces that might interest you:
Democrats Share the Blame for Tragedy of Iraq War
The Senate’s Forgotten Iraq Choice
Recognizing that there are people who deserve blame for the war other than Bush isn’t a defense of Bush, it’s the truth. I can far more about the truth than partisan CYA nonsense, or how the truth might make it harder to sell propaganda.
Why stop there? If you’re willing to make shit up to make Bush seem even worse, and solely responsible for the war, let’s get started on the “Blair free will” myth. We all know Bush had the CIA install mind-control implants in Tony Blair’s skull. Denying that simple truth is a key part of pro-Bush types’ defense of Bush’s legacy!
Again, nothing to do with whether the war was legal under American law.
Oh yes. Nominally, it’s about whether the invasion was a violation of the Iraq War Resolution. On a deeper level, though, it’s about whether it’s acceptable to use deceptive propaganda to attack a despicable person, namely George W. Bush.
What matters more, the truth, or that the reputation of an awful President be as awful as possible? There’s a worthy discussion to be had there.
Semantics has nothing to do this. Bush could not ‘enforce’ a UNSC Resolution by military action that is already being ‘enforced’ without it.
Suggesting otherwise is just stupid.
And the AUMF required Bush to use force to ‘enforce’ UNSC resolutions if it was necessary. Enforcing 1441 was not necessary.
I agree with Human Action that this discussion is worthy. The Bush Library Thread I started was worthy. But XT tried to force all into his Bush sympathetic belief that Iraq did not cooperate enough to avert war although come to find out that idiot XT has some idiot idea that inspections didnt matter. I think this at least should prove that XT was an idiot to pit me after posting crap he can’t back up with facts or reason.